19 October 2005

one reason to go to the movies

Look around on the web and you discover many interesting things about Woody Allen's Purple rose of Cairo:

  • It's supposedly Woody's favorite movie, of the ones he's made.
  • It garnered him a nomination for the Academy Award for "Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen", his fourth winless nomination since sharing the honors with Marshall Brickman for 1978's Annie Hall. He would win again the next year with Hannah and her sisters.
  • It probably didn't make enough at the box office to cover its $15 million budget.
  • Irving Berlin's "Cheek to cheek", the song that underscores the opening titles, was used in the soundtrack of one film in the 1980s. This one. It was used in ten films during the 1990s. It is from the movie Top hat, with Fred & Ginger, as seen at the end of Purple rose.
  • Michael Keaton* was originally cast in Jeff Daniels's role. Woody fired him after seeing his early footage.

But those are just bits of trivia, facts and hearsay, and easily found ones at that. You'd do far better to actually watch the movie, an eminently enjoyable, whimsical romp through the escapist nature of cinema and the whole movie-going experience.

It's delightful and fun, startlingly so for a movie set against the bleak backdrop of the Great Depression. Having avoided reading anything about the plot before watching it, everything in Purple rose was a surprise for me, and I think I enjoyed it all the more for it. So I won't ruin the plot.

One thing I feel I must point out, however, is that while Woody does not appear in the film, even in a bit role (at least that I could see), Mia Farrow has mastered his nuances and cadences so well that her lines often sound as though he could be delivering them, except that they lack most of his neuroses. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, just something noticeably odd. Mia does a fine job, and Jeff Daniels rises to the challenge of acting with her. Everybody does well, though, especially the ones onscreen.

I can't recommend this film highly enough. Grab some popcorn, if such is your inclination, kick back, and watch a wonderful movie.


* Keaton is of course better known for his portrayals of Batman, which I have also recently re-watched. His first turn in the rubber suit isn't all that bad, despite several telling signs that it is a product of the late 80s (Prince songs prominently figure in several scenes). It seemed to be a decent start for a franchise, if not a bit long on stylization and short on warmth. Unfortunately his return in 1992 was the beginning of the long downward trend of the franchise, with Burton given a freer hand for style and the unfortunate choice of two of the stranger villains, one of whom is as repulsive as he is implausible. Moreover I must wonder about the vehicle choices in the latter film: the police drive Chrysler K-cars (not know for their reliability or horsepower) and the same VW Jettas seem to appear noticeably many times, probably just repositioned and repainted on the tall but claustrophobic street sets.

17 October 2005

loopy fruits

Attack of the killer tomatoes! has some very amusing bits, including the outrageously hilarious tiny meeting room and the titling of San Francisco footage as "New York"*, but overall, it both tries too hard (naming a reporter Lois so as to allow a Superman joke later) and is lazy (commercial gags about a blind traffic cop and Jesus as a spokesman have no bearing on the plot) at the same time, and it all comes off as too many winks and not enough nostalgia. Attack is supposed to be a parody of and homage to B-movies of the 50s and later that used sparse sets, slapdash writing, stock footage, and creative-but-low-budget effects to try to tell a story in something of an earnest fashion.

I'm not certain it's entirely possible anymore to make a B-movie like that in this post-ironic modern day and age (or is it ironic post-modern?) with pure intentions. All of those black & white clunkers were amateurs trying their best at their one shot at the big screen. The 'stars' of Attack of the killer tomatoes! aren't trying to act on screen; they're trying to be outrageously funny. It doesn't work. Like I said, many a moment is funny, but overall you've gotta love this film to like it.


* Later they show a slide of what might be the Golden Gate bridge, and title it "New York?". This, my friends, is comedy.

10 October 2005

y'know, for kids

I can but wonder why Disney considers 1971's Bedknobs and broomsticks to be a suitable film for children. Having watched it today for the first time since I was a child, I can't say that I appreciate it more now than I did years ago. Based on what I see now, I'm not sure I should have even seen it as a child. Set against a backdrop of World War II, the story weaves in some pretty heavy themes:

  • child abandonment and the death of a parent (the three children are orphans of a sort)
  • wanton and unchecked pollution (Miss Price*'s motorcycle spits out a cloud of foul yellow smoke)
  • witchcraft (well, that one's obvious, but the scene where the witch joins the children in a post-prandial prayer stands out)
  • dishonest clergy (the priest seems to have plans to somehow acquire Miss Price's land and estate, and seems to be faking illness to avoid military service)
  • blackmail (the children know Miss Price is a witch and hold it over her for better food and a bed knob)
  • obvious drug trip overtones (the psychedelic flying bed sequences)
  • confidence games and scams (the Professor sings a song about selling 'cures' that don't work and charms that do nothing, though he sells only one broken trinket to the smallest child)
  • wasting food (the Professor cracks eggs and pours milk on the head of one of the bystanders)
  • mail fraud (the Professor didn't expect his correspondence course spells to actually work)
  • illegal squatting and disobeying government orders (the professor has appropriated a nice mansion vacated by people more squeamish about the unexploded bomb in the front yard)
  • taking children to pawn shops (Portabello Road, obviously the Disney backlot, seems to be where people sell things when they're down on their luck, but still ready to dance away their sorrows)
  • art forgery and other misrepresentation of goods (Portabello Road)
  • vandalism (again, Portabello Road, wherein the youngest child defaces a bust with a mustache, and the older boy breaks a couch)
  • racial segregation (the tedious and interminable Portabello Road dance sequence is segmented many a time, but never integrated. Turbans and steel drums don't mix)
  • threatening children with violence (a knife is held menacingly against one of them)
  • children swearing (well, if "bloody" counts)
  • a general disregard for the reality of physics and other science (nevermind witchcraft and a flying bed or breathing and dancing underwater, but talking animals? Give me a break)
  • a disregard for proper grammar and speech (besides the children, the animals speak very poorly and do not set a good example for an impressionable audience)
  • cheating and other poor sportsmanship (the animals' soccer game is brutal, particularly on the referee)
  • theft (the professor steals the king's medallion, and the smallest boy stole a book from the Professor's squat)
  • encouraging cohabitation (the shopkeeper is happy to think that the professor and Miss Price are shacking up without being married)
  • butt-kicking (the witchcraft-animated pair of shoes kicks the witch in the rear end)
  • overt sexual innuendo (one long shot has the Professor giving a large sausage to a pussy-cat, hmmm)
  • cruelty to animals (he steps on its tail)
  • general war-is-hell kind of stuff (shooting, fisticuffs, and whatnot, albeit with spectral solders on one side and scared Germans on the other)
All that, and it was rated 'G'. Go figure.

* 'Eglantine Price' seemed such an odd name that I was forced to run some anagrams on it. The most promising ones I found, well, weren't that promising.

  • I nip a neglecter
  • Certain peeling
  • I pin a recent leg
  • Inelegance trip
  • Pelican integer
  • Near nice piglet
Of course, "Eglantine" is merely an anagram of "Inelegant", but is it really that simple?

If I instead use 'Miss Eglantine Price' I also get:
  • Mantlepieces rising
  • Single priest cinema
  • Grim penis latencies
  • Replaces meningitis
  • Angelic Mister Penis
  • Genitalic primeness

Genitalic primeness, indeed. To think, this movie is for kids!

2 October 2005

geometricians and topologists need not apply

I forgot to mention one thing about Darkness yesterday; it does have one genuinely creepy shot. Late in the movie, amid a near-montage of running-though-hallways-with-bleeding-walls bits there's a shot of some swings in the kitchen. They do not belong there, as we were shown them at least five other times and we know fairly certain that they are, in fact, out in the backyard. So it's a bit creepy to see them in the kitchen. Well, maybe you just need to see it*.

But that was yesterday. Today I watched another so-called thriller, and even though it wasn't really a better film, I enjoyed it much more. It was Cube 2: Hypercube, the sequel to the underrated low-budget Cube, which I had rather enjoyed when I watched it a couple years ago. Neither movie, despite being described as 'scary', is scary or frightening, and this second one is considerably less gory or creepy than its predecessor.

The major difference between the two could well be the entire production team, director included, that did not return for the second film. That's one way to avoid a sophomore slump, I suppose.

Fresh cast and crew aside, Hypercube is nevertheless still very much a sequel. One of the characters is aware of (if not responsible for) the first cube thing (as seen in the first movie) and provides what little transition is given to explain the increased complexity and strangeness of this second cube thing. He, of course, is dispatched before he can explain anything useful to the rest of the cast. The special effect that does him in is discussed at length in the DVD extras, but I must admit that even after having heard their intentions and re-watched the scene, the filmmakers' intentions and final results are not so obviously well translated as they may think. This is largely irrelevant, as so much of what is happening is not meant to be explained but just survived, so it doesn't really matter or detract from the proceedings. After all, this isn't supposed to be completely explained, since it isn't really supposed to be explainable even inside the movie, though the characters attempt to do just that more than once. To admit inside the movie that the reality of what is happening isn't really possible is either very bold or very cheesy, and I can't decide which.

It's just not something that I want to think about for very long. I enjoyed watching the movie while I was watching it, and wasn't really thinking about the plot holes and sheer stupidity here and there. Suspension of disbelief, I guess they call it.

Back to the differences between this one and the first Cube, though. This one's a lot brighter, as the walls look to be made almost out of light. This time around the CGI budget was greatly increased, and even for the shots that aren't hyperkinetic killer razor cube-things the computer effects are well-integrated into the film so as to not be noticeable. It wasn't until I listened to the commentary that I realized a number of shots could not have been done optically and hadn't thought much of it since they weren't big effects shots. Technically, then, well done.

It gets cheesy at times, and dull at others (never have I seen a more boring zero-gravity love scene) but overall Hypercube is an enjoyable enough movie for people who aren't too interested in thinking about realistic physics for an hour and a half or so. Hardcore fans of the first movie seem to dislike this one, as I've seen on message boards and elsewhere, but for a casual fan like me, it's likable enough.


* By saying "...you just need to see it," I am not actually recommending that you watch this Darkness, even for that one scene. I cannot be held responsible for any harm caused as a result of persons watching said movie.

1 October 2005

shaky cameras do not scary scenes make

Today I watched Darkness, directed by Spain's Jaume Balagueró. I was no more impressed than I was scared, and the movie was about as scary as petting our cat*. Apparently well regarded as thrilling or original, I found the movie to be derivative, slow, and dull. Had it not been made a year or two before Ju-on: the Grudge or its remake (Sam Raimi's The Grudge) I would have assumed that its evil house had been lifted from the Japanese film. Alas, it predates them, but follows who knows how many iterations of The Amityville horror and its ilk, and from what little I've seen, it doesn't add much to the haunted house genre.

It doesn't add much to anything, nearest I can tell. Harsh lighting and 'dramatic shadows' I've seen before, and done better. Excessively shaky cameras and lightning-fast editing are nothing new, and anymore they just distract me. Ghostly children appearing and disappearing I've seen before, and perhaps better. Thunder and lightning used to elevate tension I've seen before, and it rarely works. Likewise walls that bleed. A father driven to madness, banging on doors among other insanity, I've seen before, and one movie about that is pretty much enough. Ancient arcane rituals in otherwise ordinary situations has been a mainstay of many a movie or X-files episode, and frankly they never did much for me either. Ostensibly normal people seeking to manifest the ultimate evil just isn't one of my favorite plots, I guess. Loud, jarring scratchy noises and blurry shapes darting across the foreground, out of focus aren't anything new either, though I cannot recall where I've seen that before. If I were to list all of the movies I saw in this one (from The Shining to The Sixth Sense to The Grudge to The Others and so many others, too many to list) I'd give up long before I was done, and I'd probably just find some of those movies that did well what Darkness tried to crib or cobble together.

I think it's becoming obvious that perhaps horror thrillers just aren't my thing. I recognize that dread and foreboding point the new direction the genre seems to be taking, where irony and postmodernism had until recently been the only way to go. Either approach needs to be crafted well to result in something I'll enjoy, and for all the work that obviously went into Darkness, it sure is light on originality.


* Which served as a welcome distraction from much of the movie, I must admit.

25 September 2005

everything's connected

Based on an offhand recommendation from somebody at work, tonight as I washed the dishes I watched Harold and Kumar go to White Castle. I hadn't heard much about the movie before, and frankly never added it to my list because it sounded mindless, and was written and directed by the 'auteur' behind Dude, where's my car, which I have not yet seen. That movie has been described to me as equally hilarious and stupid, and, well, I just haven't gotten around to checking it out yet.

On the Harold and Kumar DVD is included the trailer for Festival express, the 33 years overdue documentary about the 1970 Canada train that shuttled Janis Joplin, the Grateful Dead, Buddy Guy, The Band, the Flying burrito brothers, and others between three massive concerts and the jam sessions and parties and liquor store raids in between. I mention this because part of the trailer is scored with the Dead's "Casey Jones" (a song obviously inspired by the trip), which I had inexplicably running through my head for a number of hours two days prior. Ooooh, spooky.

While we're on the topic of music, however, I must give credit to Harold and Kumar for finally letting me hear the lyrics of "Let's get retarded" by the Black-eyed peas*. You could well recognize this song, as it is largely the title phrase repeated over some catchy beats over and over again. I'd heard it every week at work during our weekly lobby meetings to announce how well the business was doing, and I'd taken the lyrics to say "Let's get things started" or something similar. Never once had I thought that our company's co-presidents would use a song about getting wasted as a lead-in for a meeting.

Speaking then of bureaucracy (well, I guess I was), I also watched The Terminal, starring Tom Hanks and Stanley Tucci. Stanley's one of those actors whose name is immediately recognizable even if his face or his films are not. At least, he was to me. For many a year I've had Joe Gould's secret on my list of films to watch, and I think it was probably because Ian Holm was in it. Oddly enough I happened to see it at the library today, as I often have, since it doesn't seem to get checked out very much. Every time I see it I consider watching it, but the few times I glance at the covers I put it back, not wanting to see a period piece or a sappy drama. Well it turns out that Stanley stars in it and directs it. Go figure. I'll probably watch it soon, as Stanley does a pretty good job in Terminal. Also on my list is 1996's Big night, his directorial debut, and I'm pretty sure I'd added that because Tony Shaloub is in it.

That's what I like about having such a long list (over four hundred films long), the fact that I often forget why a certain one is on it and get the thrill of figuring it out while watching. Of course not every movie I watch is on my list before I see it; such was the case with The last shot, in which, coincidentally, Tony Shaloub appears.

His scenes aren't the high point of that film, but they aren't its lowest either. It's an adequate Hollywood farce, more or less, but doesn't seem to make much of its potential. The story is about a fake film production to cover a mob crackdown, and it turns into a fable about compromising one's vision and selling out and cashing in and filming a movie called "Arizona" in New England.

Matthew Broderick actually looks like a grownup, for once, but that might just be the beard talking. Alec Baldwin doesn't impress as much as he could as a starry-eyed FBI agent finally seeing his chance to do something big. The rest of the cast fails to make much of an impression as well (except in small bits, such as Toni Collette providing a drug test urine sample while chatting in a restaurant). Prominent for the lack of prominence is Calista Flockhart as a foul-mouthed struggling actress who takes small animals hostage to get her way at least twice. I think that her doing this is the old hackened phenomenon of the tv actor trying to escape typecasting as a popular, wholesome character, but she comes off as more annoying than startling or eye-opening.

On the other side of the cliché is Neil Patrick Harris's appearance in Harold and Kumar, as himself. Not only is he a former wholesome character trying to expand his reperitoire, his character is expected to be as nice as Doogie Howser and this allows him even more of a free hand to mess with the protagonists and the audience. He reappears later in the film and neatly ties up his little plot tangent, and satisfyingly so (for us and for the guys onscreen) and overall it works. Yes, it's a stunt, and one as blatant as Dustin Diamond's uncredited cameo in Made (as himself, the guy who played Screech on Saved by the bell) and just as well incorporated into the plot.

So did I like any of these movies? I'm not sure. Harold and Kumar go to White Castle made me laugh a number of times and brightened up what would otherwise been dull dish-washing. It has funny moments, but they don't gel into something of significance, unlike, oh, Office space, for example. The boys aren't Cheech and Chong reincarnated, and fail to overcome the limitations of the road movie, drug movie, and mismatched buddy films all in one shot.

The Terminal also made me laugh, and at more sophisticated jokes. It too falters, relying on too many neat little touches or strays too far from plausibility, but everybody involved puts so much into it to make it nevertheless watchable and enjoyable. Knowing Andrew Niccol had a hand in writing it helped me understand the inclusion of some of the film's scenes that were too quirky to be believable, but Spielberg and Hanks handle them more masterfully than Al Pacino and Niccol himself did with the clunky, dull and totally unbelievable S1m0ne from a couple years back. Niccol's an interesting writer, but in smaller doses and concepts not quite so high. Still, I think I liked it, and I'll probably watch it again someday, if for nothing else but the rich performances and the impressive set construction that doesn't distract from them at all.

I've probably seen The last shot the only time I'll watch it. My track record with Hollywood farces and insider jokes is spotty at best. Of the ones I can list off the top of my head:The Player, Get Shorty, Swimming with Sharks and The Big Picture, I wasn't particularly enamored with any of them. There are better movies about making movies, but that would be a whole different topic to address. Perhaps another time.


* The Peas are at the forefront of the so-called 'crunk' genre of music, revolving around partying (i.e. smoking marijuana), getting drunk, and having fun. While I am certianly fond of that last one, and occasionally have partaken of the previous item, I haven't ever smoked up or smoked out or partied or whatever the kids call smoking pot these days. While I seem to be able to enjoy drug-reference movies on some level (Half baked was funnier than Harold and Kumar), what little bit of crunk I've heard has no appeal to me at all**.

** Moreover the popular crunk appropriation of the term 'retarded' to mean 'drunk and/or high' is at the same time offensive and disappointing. In addition it brings to mind the reprehensible Saturday night live sketches starring Jimmy Fallon and Rachel Dratch as idiot teenagers with a camcorder and a crush on each other. In every sketch, many times more than once, they play-insult each other with "You're retarded" in a stupid accent before making out. I do not like to be reminded of these sketches.